Current Students on the Job Market
Recent Graduates on the Job Market
I am a Faculty Fellow at NYU's Center for European and Mediterranean Studies. I received my Ph.D. in political science from Columbia University in October 2017. I earned an M.A. from Columbia, an M.Sc and a B.Sc from Tel Aviv University. I research populism, nationalism, international security, and social and ethnic cleavages with a regional focus on Eastern and Central Europe and Israel.
My book project, Megalomania and Ruritania within the Nation: The Center Periphery Cleavage and the Rise of Right Wing Populism in Central Europe, explains variation in populism and its transformative effect on political systems.
I currently teach courses on European politics, social movements and political protest, and nationalism. Among the courses I previously taught are Introduction to Comparative Politics Introduction to International Relations; and Scope and Methods in Political Science.
In addition to my scholarship, I participate in policy debates in my blog www.commentingtogether.com , as well as other publications such as Duck of Minerva, the LSE USA blog, and Newsweek.
Anthony M. Daniel
Anthony M. Daniel received his PhD in May 2017. His dissertation, From Wagner to Taft-Hartley, Revisited, analyzed the long-lasting impacts of state-level responses to labor unrest during the New Deal. Broadly speaking, research interests include American Political Development, labor politics, and political communication. Of particular interest are historical moments of large-scale civilian resistance. He received his BA from Bard College and hobbies include chess and fishing.
Kate is a DeOlazarra Fellow at the Program in Political Philosophy, Policy & Law at the University of Virginia. She received her Ph.D. (with distinction) in political theory at Columbia University in 2019. Exploring the intersections of law, politics and economics, her research focuses on how our normative commitments - both legal and political - both intervene in, and are driven by, the economy.
Kate’s dissertation, Corporate Autonomy: Law, Constitutional Democracy and Big Business, is an interdisciplinary analytical examination of the rights and internal governance of business corporations in constitutional liberal democracies. Drawing from scholarship in political theory, economics and law, she conclude that corporations do not merit legal protections unless they first exhibit some internal democratic credentials.
In contrast to theories of collective moral personhood, she argues that the question of corporate ontology should not determine the kinds of legal rights it can claim. Rather, drawing from Dewey (1926), the law of constitutional liberal democracy should respond to shifting social ontology by defending the principle of equal human worth. After consideration of the literature on group agency (e.g., List and Pettit 2011) and group rights, (e.g., Benhabib 2002; Levy 2014) she argues that corporations are purposive, hierarchical institutions whose legal rights cannot claim to vindicate the liberties of their human members unless “there is freedom [for workers and investors] to say yes or no.” (Habermas, 1994)
Given labor markets characterized by monopsony, financial markets characterized by the “forced capitalism,” (Strine, Jr., 2017) and the control exercised by corporate leadership (Coase, 1937), ascribing corporate associational rights based upon the formal opportunity of market exit (cf., Kukathas, 2007) empowers elites at the expense of equal liberty. Further, although markets may constrain corporate choices, there is meaningful space for democratic decision-making within the corporation.
Her research intervenes in the new but growing literature inspired by controversial U.S. Supreme Court decisions awarding liberty rights to business corporations – rights that challenge the legitimacy of liberal democracy. Much of this literature relies upon analogical thinking, treating the corporation as an individual or as a state conscript. Her dissertation, in contrast, directly acknowledges the corporation’s hybrid public-private credentials by taking advantage of the ontological and normative bridge that law forms between states and markets.
This strategy will allow political theorists to examine additional contemporary economic problems that likewise claim legal provenance – from industry concentration to high finance – that implicate not only distributive justice but human freedom (Anderson 2017) and democratic sovereignty.
In addition, Kate’s research shows how political theory’s robust literature in group rights, once modified with cutting-edge economic research, can be useful to theorists investigating organized market activity. The theory of corporate rights it presents, furthermore, offers an original justification for workplace democracy that relies neither upon a teleological conception of human autonomy (e.g., Pateman, 1970) nor revolutionary syndicalist aspirations. Finally, its focus on law suggests a new approach for scholarship that increasingly engages the connections between state and market. (E.g., Eich 2018; Tooze 2018; Fraser 2015; Arrighi 1994)
Michael Rubin is a Postdoctoral Scholar in the Center for Peace and Security Studies (cPASS) at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). He earned a PhD (2018) in Political Science from Columbia University, specializing in International Relations and Comparative Politics.
Michael's research investigates the causes, conduct, and consequences of political conflict and violence. The research agenda explores three related research themes. The first examines belligerent conduct and civilian agency during civil war. Under what conditions do rebel groups seize and maintain territorial control, and what explains the decline of rebel control? Under what conditions do rebels provide governance to, and perpetrate violence against, civilians? How do civilians influence conflict processes? The second examines the causes and consequences of terrorism. Under what conditions do dissident groups resort to terrorism, and what are the consequences for conflict resolution and political stability? The third examines statebuilding and interstate conflict in the 21st Century. Under what conditions do states employ “gray zone” conflict strategies, and under what conditions do these strategies escalate to direct militarized conflict? Under what conditions do new sovereign states emerge, existing states collapse, and specific political entities capture the state apparatus over others? In addition to explaining political violence and its consequences, this research agenda contributes to understanding state formation and its failures, the nature of extra-institutional political competition between and within states, and the strengths and limitations of state-centric models of the international system.
Michael's research has been published or is forthcoming in International Studies Quarterly and the Journal of Conflict Resolution and has been funded by the National Science Foundation (Law and Social Sciences Program), The Earth Institute, the Weatherhead East Asian Institute and the Center for Israel Education. Michael has conducted field research in the Philippines and has worked on dataset design and collection for the Terrorism in Armed Conflic (TAC) and Named Entities for Social Sciences (NESS) projects. For more information, and links to published and ongoing work, please visit his website: www.michaelarubin.com
Maria Snegovaya (Ph.D., Columbia University) is a postdoctoral fellow at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and an Adjunct Fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis. She is a comparative politics, international relations and statistical methods specialist.
The key focus of Ms. Snegovaya's research is democratic backsliding and the spread of populist and radical right actors across Europe. Her dissertation explains the success of these parties in the region as a function of the economic policy choices made by the left parties of the post-Communist era. Based on extensive field research in the Czech Republic and Hungary, she argues that when post-Communist left parties shifted toward economically centrist policies in the wake of the market transition, they created a political opening for populist and radical right parties that successfully used redistributionist appeals to attract former left party supporters. Her results go in-line with the existing scholarship on other regions, such as Latin America and Western Europe, which suggests that reforms adopted by leftist leaders were programmatically dealigning for party systems and contributed to rising electoral instability and emergence of populist political actors in the aftermath of the reform process.
Ms. Snegovaya's research also explores the domestic and international factors behind Russia’s ability to successfully deploy targeted political strategies and disinformation campaigns in Europe and the U.S.
While pursuing her doctorate, Ms. Snegovaya was the recipient of research/scholarly funding from several entities, including the Harriman Institute at Columbia University, the Free Russia Foundation, the Institute for Humane Studies, and the Higher School of Economics.
Ms. Snegovaya has presented research at professional meetings and published the results of her analysis in various publications, including the Washington Post’s political science blog the Monkey Cage, policy papers, book chapters, and in peer-reviewed journals. Her publications have been included as required reading for courses at Sciences Po, Syracuse University, and the Harriman Institute at Columbia University.
Tinghua Yu is currently a Postdoctoral Fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science. She received her Ph.D. in political science from Columbia University in May 2018.
She uses formal theory and quantitative methods to study political economy of institution. Her research focuses on political selection, intrinsic motivation and authoritarian politics.
For more information, please see her website: https://sites.google.com/view/tinghua-yu